Comparison between the panoptic ophthalmoscope and the conventional direct ophthalmoscope in the detection of sight threatening diabetic retinopathy: the Kuching diabetic eye study
Objective: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the conventional direct ophthalmoscope and the PanOptic ophthalmoscope in the detection of sight threatening retinopathy, as well as the “Ease of Use” of these equipments.
Methods: 200 diabetics, newly referred from primary health physicians were examined. Fundus examinations were performed with pupil dilatation in a dark room. The examinations were performed by a single investigator using the PanOptic ophthalmoscope, the conventional direct ophthalmoscope and slit lamp biomicroscopy.
Results: The overall sensitivity in detecting sight threatening retinopathy using the conventional direct ophthalmoscope was 73.2% (95% CI: 57.1-85.8%), specificity 93.7% (95% CI: 88.7-96.9%). For PanOptic ophthalmoscope, the overall sensitivity in detecting sight threatening retinopathy was 58.5% (95% CI: 42.1-73.7%), specificity 93.7% (95% CI: 88.7-96.9%). The conventional direct ophthalmoscope was 1.38 times (95% CI: 1.17-1.61 times) as easy to use compared to the PanOptic ophthalmoscope.
Conclusion: The PanOptic ophthalmoscope is not superior to the conventional direct ophthalmoscope for the screening of Sight Threatening Retinopathy.
The National Eye Survey, 1996. Disease Control Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia.
Zimmet P, Alberti KG, Shaw J. Global and societal implications of the diabetes epidemic. Nature. 2001;414(6865):782-7.
Malaysian Clinical Practice Guideline: Diabetic Retinopathy; 1996.
Photocoagulation treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Clinical application of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) findings, DRS Report Number 8. The Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmology. 1981;88(7):583-600.
Lee CM, Olk RJ. Modified grid laser photocoagulation for diffuse diabetic macular edema. Long term visual results. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(10):1594-602.
Photocoagulation for diabetic macular oedema. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1987;27:265-72.
Hutchinson A, McIntosh A, Peters J, et al. Effectiveness of screening and monitoring tests for diabetic retinopathy—a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2000;17(7):495-506.
Harding SP, Broadbent DM, Neoh C, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of photography and direct ophthalmoscopy in screening for sight threatening eye disease: the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Study. BMJ. 1995;311(7013):1131-5.
Bresnick GH, Mukamel DB, Dickinson JC, et al. A screening approach to the surveillance of patients with diabetes for the presence of vision-threatening retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(1):19-24.
Diabetic Retinopathy Guidelines, 2005. Amalgamated Literature Review on the Management of Diabetic Retinopathy. Centre for Vision Research, University of Sydney (Westmead Hospital); 2005.
PanOptic Ophthalmoscope: A difference you can see.
Gill JM, Cole D, Lebowitz HM, et al. Accuracy of screening for diabetic retinopathy by family physicians. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(3):218-20.
McComiskie JE, Greer RM, Gole GA. Panoptic versus conventional ophthalmoscope. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;32(3):238-42.
Klein R, Klein BE, Magli YL, et al. An alternative method of grading diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 1986;93(9):1183-7.
Moss SE, Meuer SM, Klein R, et al. Are seven standard photographic fields necessary for classification of diabetic retinopathy? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1989;30(5):823-8.
Younis N, Broadbent DM, Vora JP, et al. Incidence of sight threatening retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Study: a cohort study. Lancet. 2003;361(9353):195-200.
Younis N, Broadbent DM, Harding SP, et al. Incidence of sightthreatening retinopathy in Type 1 diabetes in a systemic screening programme. Diabet Med. 2003;20(9):758-65.
Bland M. An introduction to medical statistics. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.